172 Central Avenue.Pdf

Planner: K. Gonyou

Report to London Advisory Committee on Heritage

To: Chair and Members London Advisory Committee on Heritage From: John M. Fleming Managing Director, Planning and City Planner Subject: Demolition Request for Heritage Listed Property at 172 Central Avenue by G., P., & C. Mitsis Meeting on: Wednesday July 11, 2018

Recommendation

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Direct, Planning & City Planner, with the advice of the Heritage Planner, with respect to the request for the demolition of the heritage listed property located at 172 Central Avenue, that notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 172 Central Avenue to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix D of this report.

Executive Summary

Summary of Request A demolition request for the heritage listed property located at 172 Central Avenue was submitted.

Purpose and the Effect of Recommended Action The purpose of the recommended action is for Municipal Council to issue its notice of intent to designate the property under Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act with the effect of preventing the demolition of this cultural heritage resource.

Rationale of Recommended Action Staff completed an evaluation of the property at 172 Central Avenue using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 and found that the property has significant cultural heritage value or interest and merits designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Analysis

1.0 Background

1.1 Property Location The property at 172 Central Avenue is located on the north side of Central Avenue between St. George Street and Richmond Street (Appendix A).

1.2 Cultural Heritage Status The property has been included on the Inventory of Heritage Resources since 1987. The Inventory of Heritage Resources was adopted as the Register pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act in 2007. The property at 172 Central Avenue is identified as a Priority 1 resource, and also identifies the Italianate style of the building built circa 1883. The property is considered to have potential cultural heritage value or interest.

1.3 Description The building located at 172 Central Avenue is a two storey brick house with an elevated brick and stone foundation (Appendix B). The building has an ell shaped footprint; wide across the front (south) façade at Central Avenue with a rear wing at the west end of the property. The building is capped by a shallow pitched hip roof. The building has two buff brick chimneys (which appear to have been rebuilt) which flank the east and west slopes of the roof. Paired and single brackets emphasize the deepness of the eaves.

Planner: K. Gonyou

The building has a symmetrical façade. It is comprised of three bays, with the central bay slightly projecting. This is emphasized by a gable peak in the roof, with a round louvered opening, or oculus, in the attic storey. On the main floor, the entry door is located in the central bay. The door itself appears to have been replaced, but is still a wood door with lights in the upper third. A fluted wood entablature has been applied to the exterior of the front entry, which is not believed to be original. Two-over-two wood windows are located in the bays flanking the entry door, as well as in the upper storey. Window openings are emphasized by the radiating brick voussoirs which form the segmented arch of the opening. Most windows feature louvered wooden shutters, affixed to the façade, which maintain the segmented arch shape of their openings. Brickwork detailing is also found on the painted brick masonry in the four-course string course, a projecting course for the frieze band, quoins corners of the building, and at the basement level.

The building has grand proportions. The basement is approximately eight feet in height, which is unusual for historic buildings. The main storey has ceilings nearly 12 feet in height, with 14 feet ceilings in the upper storey. This is very unusual for a private home.

Because of the building’s elevated basement, the main entry is accessed via a pair of staircases which lend a formal approach to the main door. These wooden steps feature a metal railing, which is not original, but contributes to the formal sense of approach to the main entry door.

The building is set on the middle of the property, with a semi-circular driveway accessed by two entrances off of Central Avenue. The driveway is gravel, and the island which is created by the driveway is landscaped. The building was formerly flanked by garages to each side, which were removed in late autumn 2017.

All that remains of the interior is a small portion of the robust egg-and-dart plaster moulding and two marble fireplaces. The remainder of the building has been gutted to expose its structure.

The building has an unusual structure. Previous reports on this building indicated it had a triple wythe brick structure, which would have been typical for its 1880s construction. However, a structural review by Santarelli Engineering Services (report, dated May 25, 2018) identified a very unusual structural type for this building. The structure was described as: The existing 2 storey century home consists of rubble foundations, 2 wythes of clay bricks at the perimeter and with interior wood floor framing. The brick wythes are separated by a 2” cavity with the interior wood framing bearing on the interior wythe of brick.

The existing floors are framed using a mixture of conventional wood framing with timber joists at the rear and non-conventional cantilevered timber joists at the front. The connections are predominantly friction fit.

At the time of the review, the supporting structure including floor joists, roof rafters and load bearing walls were exposed. Sample penetrations were made in the existing brick for review (Santarelli Engineering Services, Structural Review Private Residence at 172 Central Avenue, report dated May 25, 2018).

This structure type is unusual. Additionally, individual timber members have evidence of fire damage or charring.

1.4 Property History Euro-Canadian history of the subject property begins with John Kent, who purchased a 200-acre plot in 1824 (Lot 2, east of the Wharncliffe Highway, or Lot 15, Concession I of the former London Township). This included the land from Carling Street to John Street, between Richmond Street and across the Thames River to the Wharncliffe Highway (Armstrong 1990). John Street and Kent Street are named for John Kent (Priddis 1909);

Planner: K. Gonyou

Lichfield (Litchfield) Street was originally named for John Kent’s Staffordshire home (London Public Library). Lichfield Street was renamed Central Avenue in about 1898.

The subject property was included in the 1840 annexation, or “new survey,” of the City of London. Maps from the 1840s show no surveyed lots or roads open north of Market Street (now Albert Street). By the 1850s, more of the Kent Farm was being subdivided for development in anticipation of the arrival of the railroad, and a portion including the subject property was sold to D. B. Strathy. Registered Plan 118(W) was registered in 1856. However, it was unlikely it inspired much development as London plunged into a deep recession in 1857 that continued into the 1860s (Armstrong 1986, 83-85).

Information from the City Directory indicates that the lots remains vacant, with most development occurring in the surrounding area during the 1870s-1880s. The subject property at 172 Central Avenue was is recorded in the streets directory of the City Directory (1881-1882) as “vacant;” however, the business directory records its occupant, Dr. Oronhyatekha (see Section 1.4.1). A building is also recorded on the property in the 1881, revised 1888 Fire Insurance Plan (see Appendix C, Figure 3). With this information, the construction of the building is dated as circa 1882.

The building located at 172 Central Avenue has charred timbers used in its construction. This charring is not found in specific areas of the building, but spread throughout. This suggests that the timbers weren’t burnt in their present installation, but as a previous structure (see Appendix B, Image 7). In February 1879, the Carling & Co. Brewery burnt (Brock 2011, 110). It is believed that timbers salvaged from the damaged Carling Brewery were reused in the construction of the building at 172 Central Avenue.

The subject property was subsequently included in Registered Plan 238 (W) for C. W. Kent Estate and Others in 1891. This Registered Plan renumbered the lots, and created the lot fabric seen in the landscape today.

The subject property was featured in the London Free Press in the article, “Escape March of Progress: Pioneer Homes Stand Firm” (June 30, 1962) (see Appendix B, Image 1). The then property owners, Mr. & Mrs. F. Boulton, were noted for their efforts to hire an English craftsman to restore the original ornate ceiling building.

The property is also associated with Tony Urquhart (b.1934), who lived at 172 Central Avenue from 1968 until 1972. Tony Urquhart was the first Artist-in-Residence at the University of Western Ontario (now Western University). He is the co-founder of the Canadian Artist Representation/Frontes des Artistes Canadiens, and is known for his distinctive “box” style of paintings and sculptures as one of Canada’s pioneering abstractionists. He was inducted into the Order of Canada in 1995.

1.4.1 Dr. Oronhyatekha Dr. Oronhyatekha: Security, Justice, and Equality (2016), the recently published book by Keith Jamieson and Michelle A. Hamilton, comprehensively articulates Dr. Oronhyatekha’s legacy. This book formed the basis of historical research on Dr. Oronhyatekha.

Oronhyatekha (“Burning Sky” or “Burning Cloud” in Mohawk), or Peter Martin, was a significant figure in Canadian Indigenous history. He rose to prominence in medicine, sport, politics, business, fraternalism, and social reform. He was one of the first Indigenous medical doctors to achieve accreditation and to practice in Canada, and the first Indigenous person to attend Oxford University.

Born in 1841 on the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario, Oronhyatekha was sent to the Mohawk Institute where he trained as a shoemaker. He attended the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts and Kenyon College in Ohio before returning to teach at Tyendinaga on the Bay of Quinte (his mother’s home community).

He was selected by the Six Nations of the Grand River Council to give the welcoming address to the Prince of Wales during his visit in 1860. Through this opportunity,

Planner: K. Gonyou

Oronhyatekha gained an introduction to Dr. Henry Acland, personal physician to the Prince of Wales on his tour of Canada and the United States, who recommended he study medicine at Oxford University. Oronhyatekha pursued his education at Oxford University but he did not stay in England long and completed his studies at the University of Toronto, where he earned his medical degree in 1866 – the second Indigenous Canadian to become a practicing doctor.

As a qualified doctor, Dr. Oronhyatekha opened practices at Frankford, Stratford, Tyendinaga, Buffalo, London, and Toronto. Dr. Oronhyatekha was appointed as the doctor to the people of the Oneida Nation of the Thames in either 1875 or 1876 (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 128). He also opened a medical practice in London (first at 390 Richmond Street, later moving to the Masonic Hall at 371 Richmond Street), advertising himself as a specialist in cancer treatment, and diseases of the nerves, throat, and lungs (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 128).

Dr. Oronhyatekha lived at 264 Oxford Street East in 1876-1877 (City Directory), and 573 Dundas Street in 1880-1881 (City Directory), before moving into the newly constructed house at 172 Central Avenue as recorded in the 1881-1882 City Directory.

During his time in London, Dr. Oronhyatekha belonged to a number of fraternal and social organizations. In 1876, he was invited to john the International Order of Foresters (IOF) by Chief Ranger Robert Cordes. Membership was restricted to white adult males, however special dispensation was given to allow Dr. Oronhyatekha, a Mohawk, to join the International Order of Foresters (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 153). Dr. Oronhyatekha, speaking on his motivation to join the IOF, “They told me that an Indian could not be a member… That was enough for me; I had to get in” (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 180).

These associations included: International Order of Good Templars, the Loyal Orange Association, the Masons, and the Independent Order of Foresters. In 1878, he joined the Dufferin Court of the Independent Order of Foresters (Ancient Order of Foresters). And in 1879 he was elected by the membership as High Chief Ranger of the Ontario High Court and the first Supreme Chief Ranger in 1881 (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 160; Taillon 2002).

In 1889, when the Independent Order of Foresters head offices relocated from London to Toronto, Dr. Oronhyatekha closed his medical practice, resigned his position as medical attendant to the Oneida Nation of the Thames, and moved to Toronto (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 160). Dr. Oronhyatekha wrote that the IOF reluctantly decided to leave London, which he identified as the “cradle of Independent Forestry in Canada,” and “so many tried and true Foresters” who had stood by the organization in its early turmoil (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 227).

From its origins in London, Dr. Oronhyatekha continued to grow the International Order of Foresters. The organization started with 369 members, and at the time of his death in 1907, the International Order of Foresters had nearly 250,000 worldwide members (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 189). The success of the International Order of Foresters is often attributed to its “fraternal plus insurance” program, which included life and disability insurance, a pension, sick benefits, and a sum to pay for funerals (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 200). His impact is summarized as, By 1900, many fraternal societies had let their insurance plans lapse, but the IOF continuously improved its policies and expanded its membership base to make it the most successful fraternal insurance in Canada. Starting with a debt of $4,000 in 1881, by Dr. Oronhyatekha’s death in 1907, the IOF had accumulated over 10 million dollars in funds. Like other fraternal organizations with insurance plans that survived the nineteenth century, the IOF became more like commercial insurance companies by maintained its fraternal rituals (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 200).

Planner: K. Gonyou

Dr. Oronhyatekha believed in the equality of men and women, and advocated for the admission of women as full members in the International Order of Foresters – a proposal that was initially defeated but women were eventually allowed to join the International Order of Foresters by the 1890s (Jamieson and Hamilton 2016, 206). Jamieson and Hamilton write, “despite the IOF membership’s acceptance – even celebration – of Dr. Oronhyaetkha’s native ancestry, applicants with ethnic or racial backgrounds other than White generally fared less well. Although clauses banning non- whites from joining was not reinstated during the 1881 reorganization, there was little discussion of race in IOF documents” (208). The legacy of Dr. Oronhyatekha is used in the promotion of Foresters Financial, and highlighted in promotional materials (London Free Press 1949, Macleans 1951).

Dr. Oronhyatekha’s importance in London was not forgotten either. He participated in the Old Boys Reunions, including an advertisement in the 1900 Old Boys Reunion (see Appendix C, Figure 8). Well after his death in 1907, Dr. Oronhyatekha is remembered in a 1935 article in the London Free Press by Myrtle E. Home stating, During his stay in London he took a prominent position in medical circles. He was outstandingly successful in the treatment of nervous diseases and of the throat and lungs. To his natural ability as a medical practitioner he brought a mind well stored with medical learning and with an experience which many envied. He kept himself, at all times, well posted with the progress made by science, in his work and thus built up for himself a reputation which will live through the years.

Dr. Oronhyatekha is described in the plaque erected in his honour in the Allan Gardens by Heritage Toronto, As one of the great builders of the fraternal movement in North America, Dr. Oronhyaetkha was widely accepted as a distinguished leader in Canada. His success in Victorian society was founded on the Mohawk values in which he believed, including the principles of reciprocity between people and the institutions they create. While inhabiting two worlds, he remained true to his Mohawk principles, heritage and language.

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada designated Dr. Oronhyaetkha as a Person of National Historic Significance in 2001. A plaque was erected at his gravesite in Tyendinaga in 2002. In addition to this national-level recognition: • 4,000 people attended his funeral at Massey Hall in 1907; • Oronhyatekha Historical Collection donated to the Royal Ontario Museum (then part of the University of Toronto) in 1911 (only select items accepted); • Dr. Oronhyatekha celebrated as part of milestone anniversaries of the International Order of Foresters (e.g. 1949); • Plaque erected by the Ontario Archaeological and Historic Sites Board (subsequently the Ontario Heritage Foundation, now the Ontario Heritage Trust) at his gravesite in Tyendinaga in 1957; • Induction in the Canadian Indian Hall of Fame in 1966; • Oronhyaetkha Challenge Cup revived by the Prince Edward Yacht Club and Mohawk Chiefs at Tyendinaga in 1976; • Plaque erected to Dr. Oronhyatekha in Allan Gardens, Toronto by the Toronto Historical Board (now Heritage Toronto) in 1995; • The Royal Ontario Museum and the Woodland Cultural Centre curated an exhibition called Mohawk Ideals, Victorian Values which featured his museum collection in 2002; • Home at 209 Carlton Street in Toronto is included as part of Cabbagetown Northwest Heritage Conservation District (2008); • Inducted to the Loyal American Hall of Fame in 2007 by the Bay of Quinte Branch of the United Empire Loyalists Association of Canada; • Dr. O Laneway in Cabbagetown, Toronto; and, • His biography included in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography (Volume XIII) (see Appendix C).

Planner: K. Gonyou

1.5 Italianate Architectural Style Architectural historians have mused on the design of Dr. Oronhyatekha’s house at 172 Central Avenue.

In The History of the County of Middlesex (1889), Goodspeed identifies “very fine residences in London worth seeing” including Dr. Oronhyaetkha’s on Litchfield Street (229) (see Appendix C, Figure 7).

In The Historic Heart of London by John Lutman (1977), he noted the property at 172 Central Avenue, Other domestic structures of note are at 172 Central Avenue and 93-95 Maple Street. The Central residence is of historical significance to Canada’s Indians. It was first built and occupied by Oronhyatekha, the great Indian doctor, in ca. 1883. He was born in Brant County on the Six Nations Reserve in 1841. He graduated from the University of Toronto and studied medicine at Oxford University, and practiced in London, Ontario from 1875 to 1889. In 1881 he was elected the Supreme Chief Ranger of the Independent Order of Foresters and later moved to Toronto. A domestic structure in the Classical style, it has been remodelled by its present occupant, Anthony Urquhart, a local artist (pp.32-33, see Appendix C, Figure 9).

The building was featured in the Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region’s annual Geranium Heritage House Tour in 1988 – “Talbot Tour II.” Many of the home’s unique qualities are emphasized in the description for 172 Central Avenue included in the tour booklet: The Italianate house at 172 Central has an usually interesting history and design. It may have been relatively new when it was recorded on the insurance map of 1881. Its first known resident was Oronhyatekha, a Mohawk Indian from the Six- Nation Reserve, who after study at a variety of schools including Toronto and Oxford Universities, practices medicine in several Canadian towns. He lived in London from 1874 to the late 1880s, gaining recognition as an especially skilled and learned physician.

From the outside, the house might seem to resemble several others built in London during the 1870s and early 1880s. Its symmetrical two-storey façade has three bays, with segmental arches over the windows and the centre complexes of doors and sidelights. There are brick quoins at the corners of the main block and also at the corners of the projecting frontispiece. Inside, however, one discovers the house to have a character very much its own. It is unique in several respects: 1) In plan. Most house of this design are two rooms deep with a main stairway rising parallel to a long centre hall. Here, the main block is only one room deep, and the stairway turns to run along the back wall. This arrangement originally allowed three upstairs bedrooms along the front of the house. 2) In interior architectural fittings. A number of characteristics contribute to the elegance of the central hall and the two rooms that open off of it. All have very generous proportions, their height (11 ½’) is emphasized by the extraordinarily high doors leading into what were probably, in their first use, a parlour and a dining-room respectively. (The present doors are the original ones, though they have been cut in half). The egg-and-dart design of the cornice is not typical of houses of this period, but its unusually large size and robust qualities suggest that it may be original. The bulbous qualities of the “eggs” in the mouldings is echoed by the spherical projections in the mantel of the west room. Subsequent fittings have enhanced the building’s original elegance they include the valance boxes and, most likely, the downstairs newel post (compare the original newel post and spindles on the second floor). The back wing, which probably housed a kitchen and summer kitchen in 1881, has been made into a dining room and more modern kitchen. Note the unusually low doors here. The present owner, Mr. G. Robyn, has conscientiously copied the moulding of the valence boxes in extending their line across the rest of the room.

Planner: K. Gonyou

3) In construction. The stone foundation of the house is three feet thick. The brick walls are three layers thick. The beams supporting the stairwell measure 6”x6”. The roof rafters comprise three trunks split in half. When Mr. Robyn cut a new door through a bedroom wall, he discovered that even interior partitions were composed of vertical 3” x 12” or 3” x 14” planks of hemlock! The house clearly has substance as well as style (see Appendix C, Figure 10).

Leighton (2016) describes the Dr. Oronhyatekha’s house at 172 Central Avenue as, After several moves, he designed a handsome structure befitting his community status on the north side of Litchfield Street, now the section of Central Avenue west of Richmond Street, where it still stands. Its interior dimensions were described by one architect as “Brobdingnagian.” Designed to accommodate Oronhyatekha’s robust frame, its eleven-foot ceilings and nine-foot doors fitted his height and bulk: he was well over six feet tall and weighed more than 250 pounds.

Italianate houses are typically characterized in deference to Gothic or Victorian archetypes, stoic simplicity contrasting to exuberance. The Italianate style emphasized traditional Georgian balance and square shapes, but richer in ornamentation like quoins and brackets. John Blumenson attributes the Ontario vernacular version of the Italianate style to a “synthetic eclecticism” that was introduced by The Canada Farm Journal in 1865 (Blumenson 1990, 58). Combinations of architectural details were easily added or removed from standard types, lending applicability to rural or urban locales. “It satisfies the desire to be modern or up-to-date with Italianate features, but not lavishly so” (Blumenson 1990, 59).

Being “up-to-date” would have been a priority for Dr. Oronhyatekha to reflect his position as Supreme Chief Ranger of the International Order of Foresters in his new home.

2.0 Legislative and Policy Framework

2.1 Provincial Policy Statement Section 2.6.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) directs that “significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.”

“Significant” is defined in the Provincial Policy Statement (2014) as, in regards to cultural heritage and archaeology, “resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest for the important contribution they make to our understanding of the history of a place, and event, or a people.”

The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) defines “conserved” as: “Means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is maintained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.”

2.2 Ontario Heritage Act Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act requires that a register kept by the clerk shall list all properties that have been designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. Section 27(1.2) of the Ontario Heritage Act also enables Municipal Council to add properties that have not been designated, but that Municipal Council “believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest” on the Register.

The only cultural heritage protection afforded to heritage listed properties is a 60-day delay in the issuance of a demolition permit. During this time, Council Policy directs that

Planner: K. Gonyou the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) is consulted, and a public participation meeting is held at the Planning & Environment Committee.

Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities to designate properties to be of cultural heritage value or interest. Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act also establishes consultation, notification, and process requirements, as well as a process to appeal the designation of a property. Appeals to the Notice of Intent to Designate a property pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act are referred to the Conservation Review Board (CRB). Owner consent is not required for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.

2.3 Official Plan/The London Plan Chapter 13 (Heritage of the City of London’s Official Plan (1989, as amended) recognizes that properties of cultural heritage value or interest Provide physical and cultural links to the original settlement of the area and to specific periods or events in the development of the City. These properties, both individually and collectively, contribute in a very significant way to the identity of the City. They also assist in instilling civic pride, benefitting the local economy by attracting visitors to the City, and favourably influencing the decisions of those contemplating new investment or residence in the City.

The objectives of Chapter 13 (Heritage) support the conservation of heritage resources, including encouraging new development, redevelopment, and public works to be sensitive to, and in harmony with, the City’s heritage resources (Policy 13.1.iii). This direction is also supported by the policies of The London Plan (adopted 2016); The London Plan has greater consideration for potential cultural heritage resources that are listed, but not designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, through planning processes.

Applicable policies include: • Policy 563_: In conformity with the Urban Regeneration policies in the Our City part of this Plan, initiatives will be taken to support the adaptive re-use of cultural heritage resources to facilitate economic revitalization of neighbourhoods and business areas. • Policy 565_: New development, redevelopment, and all civic works and project on and adjacent to heritage designated properties and properties listed on the Register will be designed to protect the heritage attributes and character of those resources, to minimize visual and physical impact on these resources. A heritage impact assessment will be required for new development on and adjacent to heritage designated properties and properties listed on the Register to assess potential impacts, and explore alterative development approaches and mitigation measures to address any impact to the cultural heritage resource and its heritage attributes. • Policy 566_: Relocation of cultural heritage resources is discouraged. All options for on-site retention must be exhausted before relocation may be considered. • Policy 567_: In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a cultural heritage resource is found necessary, as determined by City Council, archival documentation may be required to be undertaken by the proponent and made available for archival purposes. • Policy 568_: Conservation of whole buildings on properties identified on the Register is encouraged and the retention of facades alone is discouraged. The portion of a cultural heritage resource to be conserved should reflect its significant attributes including its mass and volume. • Policy 569_: Where, through the specific process established in the Specific Policies for The Protection, Conservation and Stewardship of Cultural Heritage Resources section of this chapter and in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, it is determined that a building may be removed, the retention of architectural or landscape feature sand the use of other interpretive techniques will be encouraged where appropriate.

The Strategic Plan for the City of London 2015-2019 identifies heritage conservation as an integral part of “Building a Sustainable City.”

Planner: K. Gonyou

2.4 Register (Inventory of Heritage Resources) Municipal Council may include properties on the Inventory of Heritage Resources (Register) that it “believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest.” These properties are not designated, but are considered to have potential cultural heritage value or interest. The property at 172 Central Avenue considered to have potential cultural heritage value or interest as a heritage listed property.

Priority levels were assigned to properties included in the Inventory of Heritage Resources (Register) as an indication of their potential cultural heritage value. Priority 1 properties are: Priority 1 buildings are London’s most important heritage structures and all merit designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. They are worthy of protection through whatever incentives may be provided in terms of zoning, bonusing, or financial advantages and may be designated without owner’s consent. This group includes not only landmark buildings and buildings in pristine condition, but also lesser well-known structures with major architectural and/or historical significance and important structures that have been obscured by alterations which are reversible (Inventory of Heritage Resource, 2005).

The Inventory of Heritage Resources (Register) states that further research is required to determine the cultural heritage value or interest of heritage listed properties.

3.0 Demolition Request

3.1 Site Visit The property owners invited the Heritage Planner to a site visit, including interior access, to the property to observe the existing conditions of the structure. The site visit occurred on May 1, 2018. The Heritage Planner was accompanied by two of the property owners and a representative of the structural engineer.

3.2 Demolition Request The property owners submitted their written notice of intention to demolish or remove the building located at 172 Central Avenue which was received June 15, 2018. Municipal Council must respond to the demolition request for a heritage listed property within 60 days, or the request is deemed permitted. During this 60 day period, the London Advisory Committee on Heritage (LACH) is consulted and, pursuant to Council Policy, a public participation meeting is held at the Planning & Environment Committee (PEC).

The 60 day period for the demolition request for the property at 172 Central Avenue will expire on August 14, 2018.

A “Structural Review Private Residence at 172 Central Avenue” report prepared by Santarelii Engineering Services (dated May 25, 2018), was submitted to the Building Division by the property owner. The report was forwarded by the Building Division to the Heritage Planner.

4.0 Cultural Heritage Evaluation

4.1 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The criteria of Ontario Heritage Act Regulation 9/06 establishes criteria for determining the cultural heritage value or interest of individual properties. These criteria are: 1. Physical or design value: i. Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method; ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit; or, iii. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. Historical or associative value: i. Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community;

Planner: K. Gonyou

ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture; or, iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. Contextual value: i. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area; ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings; or, iii. Is a landmark.

A property is required to meet one or more of the abovementioned criteria to merit protection under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Should the property not meet the criteria for designation, the demolition request should be granted and the property removed from the Inventory of Heritage Resources (Register).

4.2 Evaluation Table 1: Evaluation of the property at 172 Central Avenue using the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06.

Criteria of O. Reg. 9/06 Yes/No Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, Yes expression, material or construction method Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement No Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, Yes organization or institution that is significant to a community Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, No designer or theorist who is significant to a community Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an Yes area Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its No surroundings Is a landmark No

4.2.1 Physical/Design Values The property at 172 Central Avenue includes a house which is a representative example of the Italianate style in London. Popular in the 1870s-1880s, the Italianate style was at the height of its popularity when the house at 172 Central Avenue was constructed in about 1882.

The house has a symmetrical two-storey façade with three bays, where the central bay slightly projecting, which is typical of the Italianate style. However, the remaining design qualities of the house are unusual. It is narrow with its broadest façade facing Central Avenue to make the home appear larger and grander. The two storey house is very tall, emphasizing the verticality of the Italianate style in the elevated basement and formal approach up to the main entry door, nearly twelve foot ceilings on the main floor, and fourteen foot ceilings on the second storey. These design characteristics are often attributed to Dr. Oronhyatekha’s robust stature.

The house demonstrates a high degree of integrity with respect to the Italianate style and its vertical emphasis in the design treatment of the façade, as it retains a number of original features, including: symmetrical façade, wooden two-over-two windows, paired and single brackets at the eaves, brick quoins, brick string course, brick voussoirs, brick frieze, shallow hipped roof, and slightly projecting central bay with gable and round louvered opening.

The property is not considered to have a degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit greater than another property that could be considered representative of the Italianate style. It contains a sufficient degree of craftsmanship to be considered a representative example of the Italianate style.

Planner: K. Gonyou

The property demonstrates a degree of technical achievement through the unconventional structural and construction methods used. However, it is not clear if these were intentional design features which represent a technical achievement, or the inverse.

4.2.2 Historical/Associative Values Dr. Oronhyatekha (1841-1907) is a person of National Historic Significance with direct historical associations to the property at 172 Central Avenue. He and his family lived in the house at 172 Central Avenue in its first occupancy in about 1882 until 1889. Dr. Oronhyatekha is often attributed as having a hand in the design of the house at 172 Central Avenue, as demonstrated in its tall ceilings, robust detailing, and prominent street-facing presentation to emphasize the prestige of the address. London is important in an understanding of Dr. Oronhyatekha’s significance as he was living in London when he first joined the International Order of Foresters as well as when he became its Supreme Chief Ranger. Dr. Oronhyatekha cited London as the “cradle” of the International Order of Foresters. Dr. Oronhyatekha was remembered by Londoners well after his departure from London and death in 1907.

The house at 172 Central Avenue is associated with the International Order of Foresters as the home of its first Supreme Chief Ranger, Dr. Oronhyateka. The fashionable Italianate style of the house reflects the grandness and stature of a community leader, like Dr. Oronhyateka.

The property is also associated with Tony Urquhart (b.1934), who lived at 172 Central Avenue from 1968 until 1972. Tony Urquhart was the first Artist-in-Residence at the University of Western Ontario. He is the co-founder of the Canadian Artist Representation/Frontes des Artistes Canadiens, and is known for his distinctive “box” style of paintings and sculptures as one of Canada’s pioneering abstractionists. He was inducted into the Order of Canada in 1995.

The property at 172 Central Avenue has the potential to yield information on an understanding of Mohawk ideals and Victorian values as reflected in the home of Dr. Oronhyatekha.

4.2.3 Contextual Values The property at 172 Central Avenue is important in defining the character of the North Talbot area. The North Talbot area is characterized by homes primarily in the 1870s and 1880s which reflect popular architectural styles of the time. The prominent design values of the house allow it to define this character.

The property is physically, functionally, visually, and historically linked to its surroundings in the same manner that a historic building would be, but not considered to be in a significant manner.

The property is not considered to be a landmark.

4.4 Comparative Analysis The Italianate architectural style is popular, particularly within London’s East and West Woodfield Heritage Conservation Districts. The property at 172 Central Avenue demonstrates a high degree of integrity as it retains many original attributes of its Italianate style. Additionally, the property has direct historical associations that further emphasize its significant cultural heritage value.

4.3 Building Condition A “Structural Review Private Residence at 172 Central Avenue” report prepared by Santarelii Engineering Services (dated May 25, 2018), was submitted to the Building Division by the property owner. The report was forwarded by the Building Division to the Heritage Planner.

The Building Division provided the following:

Planner: K. Gonyou

The report outlines the current condition of the building based on a visual inspection, it is noted that the inspection was limited in scope due to areas that were not visible; some intrusive investigation was performed however. The building is in poor shape; this is based on the age of the building, the original method of construction used and improper structural changes that were made in previous years.

The report mentions areas of the structure that require immediate attention. There are signs of deterioration to the load-bearing brick, structural wood members, concrete and mortar, but there appears to be little or no interior deterioration from external weather conditions. Repairs to buildings in this condition are possible.

The repairs would include shoring up the walls and floors to maintain the structural integrity of the interior framing of the building. Exterior bracing to the brick may also be required due to a 2” separation between the interior and exterior wythes of brick. There are two levels of repair open to the owner; the minimum repair option would most likely not facilitate re-occupancy of the building due to the shoring material that would need to stay in place on the inside. The other would be a more detailed restoration involving repair and replacement of structural members. Both possibilities would alleviate the unsafe conditions that are currently present and both would require a Building Permit.

4.4 Consultation Pursuant to the Council Policy Manual for demolition of a heritage listed property, notification of the demolition request was sent to 129 property owners within 120m of the subject property on June 27, 2018, as well as community groups including the Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region, the London & Middlesex Historical Society, the Urban League, and the North Talbot Community Association. Notice was also published in The Londoner on June 28, 2018.

4.5 Heritage Community Improvement Plan The Heritage Community Improvement Plan (Heritage CIP) offers two grant programs to address some of the financial impacts of heritage preservation by offering incentives that promote building rehabilitation in conjunction with new development. The Tax Increment Grant provides the registered owner a refund on the increase in the municipal portion of the property tax ensuing from a reassessment as a result of a development or rehabilitation project related to an intensification or change of use which incorporates a designated heritage property. The second incentive is a Development Charges Equivalent Grant which is issued when a designated heritage property is preserved and rehabilitated in conjunction with a development project relating to an intensification or change of use.

A property must be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act to be able to access the grant programs of the Heritage CIP.

Financial support would help to see this significant built heritage resource retained. Unfortunately, the programs of the Heritage CIP (tax increment grant and development charges rebate) have limited applicability for 172 Central Avenue.

5.0 Conclusion

Our cultural heritage resources are non-renewable. Once demolished, they are gone forever. These cultural heritage resources can be tangible links to our past in a changing environment, and maintain a sense of place in an authentic manner.

The evaluation of the property at 172 Central Avenue found that the property meets the criteria for designation under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest in Appendix D).

Planner: K. Gonyou

To ensure the conservation of this significant built heritage resource, the property at 172 Central Avenue should be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Prepared by:

Kyle Gonyou, CAHP Heritage Planner Submitted by:

Gregg Barrett, AICP Manager, Long Range Planning & Research Recommended by:

John M. Fleming, MCIP, RPP Managing Director, Planning and City Planner Note: The opinions contained herein are offered by a person or persons qualified to provide expert opinion. Further detail with respect to qualifications can be obtained from Planning Services.

July 4, 2018 KG/

Appendix A Property Location Appendix B Images Appendix C Historical Information Appendix D Statement of Cultural Heritage Value of Interest Appendix E Heritage Attributes

Sources Anglin, G. “The strangest insurance company in the world.” Macleans. February 1, 1951. pp.10-11, 44. Armstrong, F. The Forest City: An Illustrated History of London, Canada. 1986. Armstrong, F. “Thomas Kent’s Recollections of Early London.” The London and Middlesex Historian. Volume 17. Autumn 1990. Belanger, J. “It took a 20-year journey to publish the story of an inspiring Mohawk doctor and leader.” London Free Press. December 4, 2016. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. “Oronhyatekha.” Volume XIII. Retrieved March 16, 2017. Goodspeed, W. A. & C. L. History of the County of Middlesex, Ontario. 1889. pp. 229, 953-955. Hamilton M. A. “Dr. Oronhyatekha: His Life and Legacy.” Lecture. March 15, 2017. Jamieson, K. and Hamilton, M. A. Dr. Oronhyatekha Security, Justice, and Equality. Dundurn Press, Toronto: 2016. Home, M. “Six Nations lad keen in quest of knowledge.” London Free Press. October 5, 1935. p.15. Lambe, L. Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest: 172 Central Avenue. December 5, 2017. Leighton, D. “The remarkable life of Dr. Oronhyatekha.” Huron Church News. April 2016. Retrieved from https://diohuron.org/hcn/. London Free Press. “1874-1949, 75 Years of Service, Insurance plus fraternity.” July 11, 1949. London Free Press. “Escape March of Progress: Pioneer Homes Stand Firm.” June 30, 1962.

Planner: K. Gonyou

London Public Library. “Portrait of John Kent, London, Ontario.” Ivey Family London Room Digital Collections. Retrieved www.images.ourontario.ca/london/75114/data. McConnell, P. “Laneway names celebrate Cabbagetown’s heritage.” February 16, 2010. Retrieved from www.pammcconnell.ca/laneway-names-celebrate-cabbagetowns- heritage/. Montanini, C. “Meet Dr. O, London’s first indigenous physician.” The Londoner. March 9, 2017. Registered Plan 118 (W). Registered Plan 238 (W). Ruby, M. “Call him Oronhyatekha.” Brantford Expositor. November 2, 2016. Taillon, J. “Life of Oronhyatekha coming to the ROM.” Windspeak. Vol. 1, Issue 2. 2002. Urquhart, T. “Biography.” Retrieved from www.tonyurquhart.com/bio.php. Vining, E. A. “London, Stratford, Brant Claim Dr. Oronhyatekha among famous Indians.” London Free Press. February 17, 1951. p.22.

\\FILE2\users-z\pdpl\Shared\policy\HERITAGE\Demolition\Central Avenue, 172\2018-07-11 LACH Demolition Request 172 Central Avenue.docx

Planner: K. Gonyou

Appendix A – Property Location

Note: Heritage listed properties are shaded yellow and heritage designated properties are shaded red.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Appendix B – Images

Image 1: Photograph of the property at 172 Central Avenue that was included in the London Free Press article “Escape March of Progress: Pioneer Homes Stand Firm” (June 30, 1962).

Image 2: Photograph of the property at 172 Central Avenue in 1977 by John Piccur.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Image 3: Photograph of the property at 172 Central Avenue in 2002.

Image 4: Photograph of the property at 172 Central Avenue on March 20, 2017.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Image 5: Photograph of the main façade of the building located at 172 Central Avenue on May 1, 2018.

Image 6: Perspective view looking northwest, showing the main (south) and east facades of the building located at 172 Central Avenue and its relationship to Central Avenue on May 1, 2018. Note the garage structure visible in Image 4 has been removed.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Image 7: Photograph of the interior of the building at 172 Central Avenue; lath and plaster has been removed to reveal the structure of the building. Note the inconsistent charring of the timber members, which suggests that the wood was charred before its assemblage in this building (May 1, 2018).

Image 8: Detail of the small portion of the egg-and-dart plaster moulding which remains on the interior of the building located at 172 Central Avenue (May 1, 2018).

Planner: K. Gonyou

Appendix C – Historical Information

Figure 1: Registered Plan 118 (W) (1856). The property at 172 Central Avenue is located on part of lots 15 and 16 on RP 118 (W).

Planner: K. Gonyou

Figure 2: Registered Plan 238 (W) (1891) contains many interesting clues on the history of the property at 172 Central Avenue. RP238(W) includes areas that were surveyed and registered as part of RP118(W), including the subject property at 172 Central Avenue. 172 Central Avenue is now Lot 23, RP 238 (W). It is unusual for a Registered Plan to include names, but RP238(W) notes Mrs. McPherson on Lot 23.

Figure 3: Detail of Sheet 29 of the 1881, revised 1888 Fire Insurance Plan showing the property at 172 (marked as 170) Litchfield Street (now Central Avenue). Municipal renumbering was common during revisions to the Fire Insurance Plans. Courtesy Western Archives.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Figure 4: Detail of Sheet 29 of the 1892, revised 1907 Fire Insurance Plan showing the property at 172 Central Avenue. Courtesy Western Archives.

Figure 5: Detail of Sheet 29 of the 1912, revised 1915 Fire Insurance Plan showing the property at 172 Central Avenue. Courtesy Western Archives.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Figure 6: Detail of Sheet 29 of the 1912, revised 1922 Fire Insurance Plan showing the property at 172 Central Avenue. Courtesy Western Archives.

Figure 7: Dr. Oronhyatekha’s house on Litchfield Street (now 172 Central Avenue) is noted as one of the “very fine residences in London worth seeing” by Goodspeed in The History of the County of Middlesex (1889).

Planner: K. Gonyou

Figure 8: Dr. Oronhyatekha promoted himself as “a London Old Boy” in the 1900 London Old Boys’ Reunion. While this may have been a marketing measure to promote membership in the International Order of Foresters as a fraternal benefit society, it nonetheless demonstrates Dr. Oronhyatekha’s affinity to London.

Figure 9: Excerpt from The Historic Heart of London (1977) by John Lutman on the property at 172 Central Avenue (pp. 32-33).

Planner: K. Gonyou

Figure 10: Pages from the Architectural Conservancy Ontario – London Region’s annual Geranium Heritage House Tour (1988) – Talbot Tour II – on the building at 172 Central Avenue.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Table 2: City Directory information related to the property at 172 Central Avenue

Year Resident Occupation Note 1875 Vacant Lots 1881-1882 Oronhyatekha Physician Office: 390 ½ Richmond Street Home: 513 Dundas (alphabetical) Home: Litchfield (business) 1883 Oronhyatekha M. D., physician Office: 390 ½ Richmond Street and surgeon Home: 172 Litchfield Street 1884 Oronhyatekha Physician Office: 373 Richmond Street Home: 172 Litchfield Street 1886 Oronhyatekha Physician Office: Masonic Temple Home: 172 Litchfield Street 1887 Oronhyatekha Physician Office: Masonic Temple Home: 172 Litchfield Street 1888-1906 Archibald A. McPherson & Business: 136 Dundas Street; McPherson Co. Dry Goods; 413 Richmond Street insurance agent Home: 172 Litchfield Street 1907 Ezra E. Smith Accountant; Manager, Hunt Brothers 1908-1916 Thomas Wilson Tailor Worked at Wilson and Slater 1917-1921 Mrs. A. Wilson Widow 1922 Jas. Halliday Gardener 1923 Mrs. Emma Halliday 1924-1944 A. Charles Wilson Travelling Salesman; drummer 1945 Harriet Cooper 1946-1955 Leslie A. Race Salesman, Soldier 1956-1957 Stewart Carpenter McCallum 1958-1966 F. Murray & M. Regional manager Anne Boulton of Investment Corps., realtor 1967 Vacant 1968-1973 Anthony & Jane Artist Instructor at University of Urquhart Western Ontario 1974- G. Robyn

Planner: K. Gonyou

Appendix D – Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest

Legal Description Lot 23, Plan 238(W), London

Description of Property The property located at 172 Central Avenue is located on the north side of Central Avenue (formerly Lichfield Street, Litchfield Street) between Richmond Street and St. George Street. A two storey brick building with an elevated basement is located on the property.

Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest The property at 172 Central Avenue is of cultural heritage value or interest because of its physical or design values, historical or associative values, and its contextual values.

The property at 172 Central Avenue includes a house which is a representative example of the Italianate style in London. Popular in the 1870s-1880s, the Italianate style was at the height of its popularity when the house at 172 Central Avenue was constructed in about 1882.

Dr. Oronhyatekha (1841-1907) is a person of National Historic Significance with direct historical associations to the property at 172 Central Avenue. He and his family lived in the house at 172 Central Avenue in its first occupancy in about 1882 until 1889. Dr. Oronhyatekha is often attributed as having a hand in the design of the house at 172 Central Avenue, as demonstrated in its tall ceilings, robust detailing, and prominent street-facing presentation to emphasize the prestige of the address. London is important in an understanding of Dr. Oronhyatekha’s significance as he was living in London when he first joined the International Order of Foresters as well as when he became its Supreme Chief Ranger. Dr. Oronhyatekha cited London as the “cradle” of the International Order of Foresters. Dr. Oronhyatekha was remembered by Londoners well after his departure from London and death in 1907.

The property is also associated with Tony Urquhart (b.1934), who lived at 172 Central Avenue from 1968 until 1972. Tony Urquhart was the first Artist-in-Residence at the University of Western Ontario. He is the co-founder of the Canadian Artist Representation/Frontes des Artistes Canadiens, and is known for his distinctive “box” style of paintings and sculptures as one of Canada’s pioneering abstractionists. He was inducted into the Order of Canada in 1995.

Planner: K. Gonyou

The property at 172 Central Avenue has the potential to yield information on an understanding of Mohawk ideals and Victorian values as reflected in the home of Dr. Oronhyatekha.

The property at 172 Central Avenue is important in defining the character of the North Talbot area. The North Talbot area is characterized by homes primarily in the 1870s and 1880s which reflect popular architectural styles of the time. The prominent design values of the house allow it to define this character.

Heritage Attributes The heritage attributes which support or contribute to the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 172 Central Avenue include: • Form, scale, and massing of the two storey brick building with elevated basement; • Setback of the building from Central Avenue; • Orientation of the building with its broadest façade towards Central Avenue; • Brick exterior cladding (now painted) and brick detailing, including string course, frieze, quoins, voussoirs, and two chimneys; • Symmetrical, three-bay façade with middle bay slightly projecting; • Shallow pitched hipped roof with gable roof emphasizing the slightly projecting middle bay of the building; • Louvered round window in the front gable; • Paired and single wood brackets at the eaves; • Segmented arch window openings with radiating brick voussoirs; • Wooden two-over-two windows; and, • Wood shutters on the front façade.

Planner: K. Gonyou

Appendix E – Heritage Attributes